Here's the strategy behind the article's investigation :ġ.

I think it will be to everyone's benefit if the strategy of the article's investigations are clarified first and foremost. The article had ignited controversy in cycling circles about its apparently 'flawed' analysis. To me, the article appeared to be a logical investigation of why speeds increased in the Tour and whether they could be explained by the latest racing bikes. Unless someone gives me serious money, I won't be diving into such an endeavor.īut recently, Ph.D's Jan Heine and Mark Vande Kamp who write for the magazine Bicycle Quarterly sought to answer this question in their article titled 'Are Modern Bicycles Faster? An Analysis of Tour de France Speed'. You would require lots of data for many years and a handy computer to make some meaning out of it. To consider the effect of just bicycle technology alone on cycling speeds, a multiple regression analysis has to be performed. Some have stuck through to Grand Tour racing, the list of which is mandated by the final word of the UCI. In 100 years of cycling history, innovations have come and gone. Random Events (Noise)- Example - a freak crash 2 km from the finish line that injured many riders, a neutralized stage due to the death of an athlete, any day to day variation that cannot be predicted but is present. Race Specific - Course, weather, tactics employed, rules, etc.Ĥ. We'll disregard other things and consider just bicycles.ģ. Technology Related - Bicycles, fancy apparel etc. Human Performance Related - Physiology, training, nutrition, medicine and dopingĢ. In my opinion, these independent or explanatory variables can be broadly termed into 4 categories :ġ. I have shown these factors diagrammatically below.

This method, a staple in any statistician's arsenal of tools, allows one to estimate the effects of many factors on a single dependent variable, in our case - cycling performance.įor starters, there are a number of independent variables that factor into a favorable cycling performance. This most entertaining problem is one that maybe analyzed with a technique called multiple regression.

For instance, since its inception in 1903 to the 1990's, the Tour de France had seen its winner's average speed increase some 50-55% as this site will show.īut here's the big question - how much of that speed increase came from bicycle improvements alone? If you don't factor in the contributions from all other things- temperature, course, race tactics, improved training methods, nutrition and doping - what role does bicycle technology alone have to play in higher speeds? Is it significant to be appreciated? Without a shadow of doubt, most of us will say that today's Grand Tours are faster than those of the past.

Tour de france average speed mph